Conservative VS Liberal

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The Tea Party: A phony grassroots movement headed for political oblivion?

By DOUG THOMPSON

The week’s primaries were supposed to be a celebration for the so-called Tea Party, a phony grassroots movement that is really a front for the extreme right-wing.

Instead, several of the party’s annointed candidates lost to establishment opponents and some who won — like fringe candidate Sharron Angle in the Nevada GOP Senate primary — highlight the con job the Tea Party is trying to pull on American voters.

Notes The Washington Post:

The national “tea party” movement’s recent winning streak broke with Tuesday’s primary results, providing fresh evidence of the decentralized conservative network’s struggle to convert activist anger and energy into electoral results.

That struggle is likely to continue as Republicans head into general elections without knowing whether conservative activists will throw their support behind more moderate GOP nominees. Even the tea party favorites who prevailed on Tuesday face the new challenge of fighting perceptions of extremism among moderate and independent voters.

From California to Virginia (with some notable exceptions), establishment-favored candidates won Tuesday in Republican primary battles for governor, House and Senate. In California, candidates who claimed the conservative mantle were outgunned by well-known and well-funded opponents. And in two congressional races in Virginia, where the tea party movement is popular and abundant, activists were unable to coalesce around a single candidate — illustrating the organizational challenges facing the movement’s grass roots.

A new Washington Post-ABC News polls show half of the American electorate now disapprove of the Tea Party and think of it as too extreme — an 11 point jump in the group’s negative rating.

Angle’s win in Nevada may well be the beginning of the end of the Tea Party. (People are starting to wake up and see them for what they are - phonies).

Writes Brent Budowsky in The Hill:

Will voters favor a candidate who supports saunas and massages for criminals, opposes Social Security and Medicare for seniors and fights against jobless benefits and jobs programs for workers? Don’t bet on it, in Nevada or any other state. Mark the Nevada Senate campaign as leaning blue. The fad of the polyester populists of the right, who will vote like bank lobbyists in Congress, will soon come to an end.

The great Nevada campaign will prove the point I have been making all year.

The Tea Party movement may control the Republican Party at the cost of losing many general elections. It is the oldest and truest timeless rule of politics. Voters oppose the status quo, but oppose extremism even more.

David Corn, writing for Politics Daily, says the more people find out about the Tea Party and the fringe candidates it backs the more the party loses support.

Says Corn:

At first, the TP movement could be seen as a patriotic uprising with a time-tested and honorable moniker. And its original target was President Obama’s health care overhaul — a controversial move that many voters, independents especially, were wary of.

But in recent weeks, the — shall we say — excesses of the Tea Party have been on display.

When

Rand Paul

won Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary, he proudly declared, “I have a message from the Tea Party: we’ve come to take our government back.” Paul, now the closest thing to a national spokesman for Tea Partyism, in the next few days proceeded to round out the usual Tea Party message by noting he did not support all of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and by saying that he believed Obama’s pressure on BP, the despoiler of the Gulf of Mexico, was “un-American.” Paul was simply sharing his true desire for small-government. But his remarks revealed the not-so-pretty libertarian underbelly of the leave-us-alone Tea Party movement and

exposed its fundamental bias against using government to combat such wrongs as corporate pollution or racism. He looked like a John Bircher of the 1950s

— yet he was reflecting the current sentiments of his people.

The backlash is inevitable. The Tea Party is not — and never has been — the “grassroots” movement that is claims. It was born out of a sham grassroots organization created in the office of a Republican consultant for a millionaire GOP client and then nurtured into existance by former Republican Congressman Dick Armey of Texas.

It’s a phony organization, espousing fake idealism, playing on the gullibility of those who flock to so-called “populist movements.” It will make a lot of noise but — in the end — will accomplish nothing.

AMEN!!!

Edited July 11, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

BP Republicans - take a look at who/what they are and then ask yourself why anyone would want more of these people elected:

bp Republicans | BP Republicans

[pattygreen 5]

[cleosmom quote] Most of the people in this country were dependent on the government long before Obama became president. It only became an issue when he did, however, again reflecting on the never ending hypocrisy.

No. The government has been causing dependency of the people for a very long time, this is true, but it is only recently that the people have decided that enough is enough. It mostly got them riled up when Obama began his spending sprees that far outnumbered any in history! When he campaigned on "change" and then there was just more of the same, it pissed people off. He wasn't planning to 'change' anything. He became worse than all the rest.

[pattygreen 5]

That's right, Pattygreen, a CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, not the government, wants the clown to retire.

But typical neocon reaction: blame the government. Geez.

Consumer advocacy groups (people)bring laws to the governments attention and they are passed that way.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

That's right, Pattygreen, a CONSUMER ADVOCACY GROUP, not the government, wants the clown to retire.

But typical neocon reaction: blame the government. Geez.

Consumer advocacy groups (people)bring laws to the governments attention and they are passed that way.

Wrong again. These groups put pressure on the companies, like they did with the Joe the Camel, not wanting it used because it appealed to young people. And they are trying to put pressure on McDonald's not to use the clown to appeal to kids because the food is high in fat, salt and sugar.

Find me the federal law that says McDonald's can't use the clown. Or shut up about it.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

[cleosmom quote] Most of the people in this country were dependent on the government long before Obama became president. It only became an issue when he did, however, again reflecting on the never ending hypocrisy.

No. The government has been causing dependency of the people for a very long time, this is true, but it is only recently that the people have decided that enough is enough. It mostly got them riled up when Obama began his spending sprees that far outnumbered any in history! When he campaigned on "change" and then there was just more of the same, it pissed people off. He wasn't planning to 'change' anything. He became worse than all the rest.

Again, and this is the second time I have asked for this, what is the big spending spree you keep yapping about? We know from my accurate charts and other info that the stimulus is just a small part of the deficit and spending.

I have already shown that much of the spending is for a continuation of bush's policies - the two wars, medicare part D, and the two tax cuts -ALL UNFUNDED. Plus we have the mandated programs like social security, medicare and medicaid and unemployment (WELL, WE DID HAVE UNEMPLOYMENT UNTIL THE REPUBLICANS STOPPED IT CAUSING HARDSHIP FOR MILLIONS, BUT HEY, JUST MORE COLLATERAL DAMAGE ).

So what is this big spending spree? Because if Obama is giving away free money I want to know where to sign up.

And please don't cut and paste some long laundry list of this and that. I want you to show me some big new program (health care is paid for - let's not get into that again). I want you to show me some NEW program that Obama has started that he's spending all this money on, other than the stimulus. Can't be on old things that we were paying for under bush. It has to be something new and big.

So, what is it????

[pattygreen 5]

It doesn't matter who made the bill. The new president owns it now. If he truly understands that we are spending too much and can't afford to, then any spending that Bush created should be eliminated by him. He's in charge. HE needs to end it. He said he was going to stop the war. Why hasn't he? He promised while campaigning.

The person in the driver seat is the one who has to end the spending, dispite who made the bills. I am sick and tired of hearing about how Bush is at fault for everything. SO WHAT! DO something about it then. STOP THE SPENDING NOW!!! When does Obama own it? You think that the health care bill isn't going to cost anything? Wow are you in for a rude awakening.

CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed

May 12, 2010 9:08 AM

[/url]

The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion.

The revised figure is due to estimated costs to federal agencies to implement the new health care reform bill – such as administrative expenses for the Internal Revenue Services and the Department of Health and Human Services -- and the costs for a "variety of grant and other program spending for which specified funding levels for one or more years are provided in the act."

CBO had originally estimated that the health care reform bill would result in a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion from 2010-2019; this revised number would eliminate most of that savings.

 In a statement, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said  that the new CBO analysis "provides ample cause for alarm. This comes just weeks after the Obama administration itself released an analysis confirming that the new law actually increases Americans’ health care costs. The American people wanted one thing above all from health care reform: lower costs, which Washington Democrats promised, but they did not deliver. These revelations widen the serious credibility gap President Obama is facing."

Office of Management and Budget spokesman Kenneth Baer said in response that the health care law "will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it. If these authorizations are funded, they must be offset somewhere else in the discretionary budget. The President has called for a non-security discretionary spending freeze, and he will enforce that with his veto pen."

Baer also pointed a reporter to   comments made by OMB director Peter Orszag on his blog in March  in which the budget director says that Congress has the power to pay for the $115 billion costs with cuts elsewhere, or not act on those budget authorizations in the bill at all.

-Jake Tapper

[Cleo's Mom 257]

pattygreen: It doesn't matter who made the bill. The new president owns it now. If he truly understands that we are spending too much and can't afford to, then any spending that Bush created should be eliminated by him. He's in charge. HE needs to end it. He said he was going to stop the war. Why hasn't he? He promised while campaigning.

The person in the driver seat is the one who has to end the spending, dispite who made the bills. I am sick and tired of hearing about how Bush is at fault for everything. SO WHAT! DO something about it then. STOP THE SPENDING NOW!!! When does Obama own it? You think that the health care bill isn't going to cost anything? Wow are you in for a rude awakening.

So, once again, you have nothing. There are half the number of troops in Iraq now than at the height (about 70,000 vs 140,000) so Pres. Obama IS bringing them home - responsibly - not the way bush put them in - irresponsibly. And in Afghanistan they will start coming home next summer. So, once again - wrong.

Secondly - the medicare part D was a HUGE entitlement program for senior citizens. Please tell me who in congress (that's who voted for it) is going to vote against it. The republicans in the senate would filibuster getting rid of it since they're the ones who voted this big giveaway to pharma. Did you call your two senators and tell them to repeal this? Because, unlike healthcare, IT IS TOTALLY UNFUNDED.

The two tax cuts for the wealthy during a time of war is totally irresponsible. We should all be paying the tax rate that we did under Clinton when we all did well, and he balanced the budget and produced a surplus.

So, here's your job:

Call your two senators and congressman and tell them to vote in favor of allowing the tax cuts to expire and to vote to repeal medicare part D, and to vote to de-fund the two wars.

When you do that, get back to me with their response.

And if there are any republicans running for congress or U.S. Senate call and ask their position on these issues. Otherwise, quit your complaining. All you do is bash Obama and complain. It is quite tiresome.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Republicans are trying to wreck the economy

Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:10:04 PM PDT

Republicans aren't just rooting for failure anymore. They are actively trying to bring it about. Under the cloak of the Senate filibuster, they are blocking extended unemployment benefits in the hopes of tanking the American economy, believing that if they can make the recession worse, then they can win in this November's election.

Today on the White House blog, Larry Summers posted another reasoned analysis explaining why it is so important that Republicans end their filibuster of unemployment benefits.

The lapse in extended unemployment insurance benefits at the end of May has resulted in 2.5 million jobless Americans exhausting their assistance. If we do not reinstate benefits by the end of the month, this number will grow to 3.2 million. These losses are exacting an enormous human toll on families who count on these benefits as they continue to search for jobs.

As the President recently remarked: “Lasting unemployment takes a toll on families, takes a toll on marriages, takes a toll on children. It saps the vitality of communities, especially in places that have seen factories and other anchoring businesses shut their doors. And being unable to find work – being able to provide for your family – that doesn’t just affect your economic security, that affects your heart and your soul. It beats you up. It’s hard.”

It is also bad for the economy. But unemployment insurance puts money in the pockets of the families most likely to spend the money – which in turn expands the economy and creates jobs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has identified increased aid to the unemployed as one of the two most cost-effective policy options for increasing economic production and employment.

Missed unemployment insurance payments since May total over $10 billion – enough to have created 100,000 jobs. An abrupt and premature withdrawal of relief is not only something families cannot afford, it is something that the economy cannot afford at a time when the economy is at a critical juncture. The economy is finally creating jobs, but not nearly fast enough to close the 8 million-job gap opened by the recession.

Summers's words are unimpeachably correct, but they will fall on deaf ears. The reason is simple: Republicans in Congress simply aren't listening to rational economic analysis. The only thing they care about is that cutting unemployment benefits hurts the economy and they believe hurting the economy will help them win the election.

It's shocking and sad that a major political party would resort to such craven tactics for partisan gain, but it is what it is. And at this point, trying to sit down with them and talk as adults just isn't working. It's time to unleash the facts and call them out for what they are trying to do: wreck the economy to win a campaign.

The only way to get Republicans to the table will be to make them pay a political price for their malicious obstruction, and the best way of doing that is expose them for who they are

dailykos

This is the republican agenda - failure for this president, failure for the American people and failure for this country so that they can win in November.

And there are some who want to elect more of these people?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Liberals have Facts

Conservatives have Fox

[lauragshsu 6]

Liberals have Facts

Conservatives have Fox

Cleo, I love you, really I do, but please don't lump all conservatives in the same group. Not all conservatives are neo-cons who want tax cuts for the rich, watch Fox news only and believe that every word out of Glenn Beck's mouth it truthful.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Cleo, I love you, really I do, but please don't lump all conservatives in the same group. Not all conservatives are neo-cons who want tax cuts for the rich, watch Fox news only and believe that every word out of Glenn Beck's mouth it truthful.

I hear what you're saying. It was just a clever saying I came up with. But I do think that most people who call themselves conservatives watch Fox as opposed to any other cable news station. If you are a conservative who doesn't believe in tax cuts for the rich - you are in the minority. I wish more were like you.

Thanks for your post. :cool:

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Here's the tea party that wants to take control of our government. It doesn't matter that the billboard will be changed. What matters is the mind-set that put it there to begin with:

Iowa Tea Party Group Backs Down on Obama-Lenin-Hitler Billboard

Prison Planet.com

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The North Iowa Tea Party has buckled in response to criticism and has removed their billboard.

The North Iowa Tea Party has experienced cold feet. On Wednesday the group replaced a billboard comparing Barry Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin, calling the sign a bad decision that reflected poorly on the organization, according to the Associated Press. The billboard was in downtown Mason, Iowa.

Last week the 200 member Tea Party in Iowa decided to put up the billboard. It showed Hitler, Obama, and Lenin with the words “National Socialism,” and “Marxist Socialism.” It was decided to remove the billboard after other Tea Party groups and leaders criticized its message and images.

North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson said he agreed the images of Hitler and Lenin on either side of an image of Obama was offensive. He said the images overwhelmed the intended message of anti-socialism.

“They are absolutely right in their criticism because the image of Hitler just totally wiped everything else and it misrepresents the tea party movement,” Johnson said. “They were right from the standpoint that the image was not a positive reflection on the tea people.”

The American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, a New York-based group, said the image of Hitler was inappropriate. “We ask that political groups do not trivialize our suffering in the future by making false analogies with Hitler’s horrendous crimes,” the group said in a statement.

The North Iowa Tea Party plans to replace the billboard with a new one featuring a quote from Thomas Jefferson. “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government,” the Jefferson quote purportedly says. Critics argue that Jefferson never made the statement.

“It’s going to be little more bland,” Johnson told the Associated Press. “We paid for a month, so we don’t want to waste the money.”

The Tea Party has been a “little more bland” since it was hijacked by establishment Republicans and former McCain running mate Sarah Palin was declared its unofficial leader.

[lauragshsu 6]

I hear what you're saying. It was just a clever saying I came up with. But I do think that most people who call themselves conservatives watch Fox as opposed to any other cable news station. If you are a conservative who doesn't believe in tax cuts for the rich - you are in the minority. I wish more were like you.

Thanks for your post. :cool:

I think there's a difference in all the parties. There's conservatives, then there's right-wing nut jobs. Just like there's liberals and there's the bleeding heart liberals. I think there are actually a lot of people who watch/read Fox news, but also who follow up on what they read/hear and find out more about it from other news sources. Unfortunately, most of those people aren't on this website.

Keep on posting- I love reading what you say.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I think there's a difference in all the parties. There's conservatives, then there's right-wing nut jobs. Just like there's liberals and there's the bleeding heart liberals. I think there are actually a lot of people who watch/read Fox news, but also who follow up on what they read/hear and find out more about it from other news sources. Unfortunately, most of those people aren't on this website.

Keep on posting- I love reading what you say.

I don't know how politically active or involved your are but I do know that the tea party wants to hijack the republican party and make it an extremist party. They don't want to form a third party due to the historically poor showing of third parties but rather -and I quote - they want to "cleanse the republican party". So moderate, logical, thinking people like you need to keep that from happening. The days of moderate republicans seem to be coming to an end as they try to pander to the tea party. Don't let that happen.